Following on from Gregers' idea to implement our very own Hall of Fame at 606v2, here is the thread where all the deliberating will take place.

As you know, there is a Hall of Fame already set up by the ICC, though looking through it there are some names in that list which are debateable as to whether they really belong in such company. That, then, is up to us to decide. Let's make our Hall of Fame elitist in every way, ensuring that only the most worthy of candidates are elected.

I propose that we elect 30 founder members of our Hall of Fame before the voting gets underway - whose position in cricketing history we can all agree on. Remember, this Hall doesn't have to only include players but can include managers, figureheads or anyone else that we feel has had a significant impact upon the sport to deem them worthy of a place.

In order for a candidate to gain election to the Hall, they will need a yes vote of 75% or more. Anything less will see them fail to get in. Every candidate must be retired from the sport, and no currently active players will be considered.

Once our initial 30 members are agreed upon I suggest that we consider 10 more per month, working our way through the current ICC Hall of Fame and casting our own votes as to whether those names should belong in our own elitist Hall of Fame here at 606v2. Voting for each 10 candidates will run from the 1st of the month, when those names will be posted, until the last day of the month, when the votes will be tallied.

When we have exhaused those names in the current ICC Hall of Fame, there will be an opportunity for our members to decide upon the next group of 10 nominees that aren't currently in the ICC Hall of Fame, but may be worthy to be considered for our own (i.e. those that have recently retired such as Gilchrist etc).

My suggestion for the inaugural 30 is as follows. It is intended that these be the 30 very best and uncontroversial inductees, so please put forward any suggestions that you may have as to possible changes to this list, before we get started. We need to get the right names in this initial 30. In no particular order:

Charlie Turner - Clearly Australia's stand-out bowler of the pre-World War I era. Yes, he may have had financial issues. But they don't really influence my perception of him as a cricket. He left Tests slightly early but was at an age by which many bowlers of later eras were worn out by. It must also be considered that a tour then consisted of months on a boat so playing international cricket too often was never going to help you financially (amateur game of course). YES

Bill Johnston - I said earlier that he was certainly a serious candidate. But sadly I can't quite find it in me to vote Yes for him. Firstly, he had a few too many poor series. Secondly, he seems very much to have been the third man in a top notch attack. To get in as an unsung hero he probably needed to have played a few more than 40 Tests.

Hugh Tayfield - Very similar sentiments to those I had with Johnston. Of course, it is in Tayfield's favour that he's SA best spinner. But I don't think he was a great - more of an important cog in a decent team. Has probably suffered from not having someone champion his case. NO

Makhaya Ntini - A very good bowler on his day, but it wasn't always his day and he wasn't in the class of a lot of his contemporaries and near contemporaries. His role as an icon is indisputable, but isn't sufficient to get him in the Hall in my view. Only time can tell if he can make a difference. NO

Not sure who the St.Peter-like gatekeeper is at the 606v2 Hall Of Fame, but imagine there'll be a stewards' inquiry about letting Tony Greig in . . . . . . . Perhaps that's the reason for delay? He should be in the Hall Of Fame stocks.

Sorry guys, had an interview today and been busy with the ICC position paper as you can imagine. This sport does throw up some curveballs. Will count the votes before going to bed, and suggest next bunch of candidates.

So votes counted...Only 8 (sorry alfie!!!) people voting as far as I can tell: kwini, msp, guildford, the corporal, Olly, hoggy and myself (and alfie!).Hill gets in on the 2nd attempt with a unanimous decision. That to me seems fair enoughBoth Greig and Bevan get knocked back to repechage with 62.5%.

As for candidates for this round I suggest:- Fred Titmus (repechage - originally guildford)- Rod Marsh (originally ICC HoF, backed by myself this time, given unfairly short time last time)- Gary Kirsten (nominated by kingraf who doesn't seem to have been around much; seconded by msp who I'm sure will be happy to make a case; if not I can)

Hoggy, I seem to remember you nominating a couple of guys (Faisal?) but can't for the life of me find the post anywhere, and can't remember the names. Could you remind me?

Anyone else with nominations should feel free to post them again.

Last edited by Mike Selig on Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:28 am; edited 1 time in total

Mike Selig wrote:So votes counted...Only 7 people voting as far as I can tell: kwini, msp, guildford, the corporal, Olly, hoggy and myself.Hill gets in on the 2nd attempt with a unanimous decision. That to me seems fair enoughGreig misses out by the narrowest of margins with 71% - not quite the 75 required, but enough for a repechage round.Bevan just escapes getting knocked out in the first round and is through to repechage with 57%.

As for candidates for this round I suggest:- Fred Titmus (repechage - originally guildford)- Rod Marsh (originally ICC HoF, backed by myself this time, given unfairly short time last time)- Gary Kirsten (nominated by kingraf who doesn't seem to have been around much; seconded by msp who I'm sure will be happy to make a case; if not I can)

Hoggy, I seem to remember you nominating a couple of guys (Faisal?) but can't for the life of me find the post anywhere, and can't remember the names. Could you remind me?

Anyone else with nominations should feel free to post them again.

Fazal Mahmood and Aubrey Faulkner were the two names I put forward Mike

Just wondered if you had any particular reason for turning down Bevan. There's most definitely no obligation to vote in favour of any candidate but if a poster puts someone up and makes a case, it's probably fair to say - even if only briefly - why they don't cut your mustard. No hassle intended or disagreement sought, you'll see above that that I also voted NO. Cheers.

Any chance of including Fred Titmus's chiropodist as a sort of joint nomination?

I will nominate someone for the next go-round, but am intrigued that Michael Bevan missed out this time.

For those of us who haven't been able to follow the haphazard schedule (it's very difficult) of ODI's over the past twenty years, the question still remains: Are there any others that might be valid candidates on account of their ODI, rather than Test (or County) excellence? I rather felt that there was a lack of that perspective in the case for MB.

Mike Selig wrote:So votes counted...Only 7 people voting as far as I can tell: kwini, msp, guildford, the corporal, Olly, hoggy and myself.Hill gets in on the 2nd attempt with a unanimous decision. That to me seems fair enoughGreig misses out by the narrowest of margins with 71% - not quite the 75 required, but enough for a repechage round.Bevan just escapes getting knocked out in the first round and is through to repechage with 57%.

As for candidates for this round I suggest:- Fred Titmus (repechage - originally guildford)- Rod Marsh (originally ICC HoF, backed by myself this time, given unfairly short time last time)- Gary Kirsten (nominated by kingraf who doesn't seem to have been around much; seconded by msp who I'm sure will be happy to make a case; if not I can)

Hoggy, I seem to remember you nominating a couple of guys (Faisal?) but can't for the life of me find the post anywhere, and can't remember the names. Could you remind me?

As for the last round results, fair enough that Hill's gone through and happy to se the kind of support that both Bevan and Greig received. Looking forward to the 2nd round debates on those....... As for this round's candidates, I wasn't around when the Rod Marsh discussions took place, so looking forward to Mike's case. The Titmus debate was a very interesting one, I voted no in the end though, and am looking forward to how it shapes up this time round....... I can certainly make a case for Garry Kirsten, hope kingraf would also join us here and I look forward to Mike to give us more ideas about the more technical aspects of his coaching career.

Mike Selig wrote:Sorry alfie, now edited. In my pseudo-defense it was very late...

No problem...the whole thing dragged on so long votes were easy to overlook ! I probably should have restated them when you nominated the cut off date.Anyway no difference to the outcome. Good to see Hill through , and a couple of interesting second chance debates for the future...

It'll take me a bit of time to put together a detailed case for Gary Kirsten. But we can get going before that. As far as Kirsten is concerned, I want to make both his coaching as well as playing record as strongpoints. He has earned a reputation as one of the most successful coaches. India became the number 1 test side and the ODI world champions under Kirsten's mentorship, and then he took South Africa to the top of the test ranking. He took over as Indian coach after the Greg Chappell era, but quickly reestablished the very credential of the coaching system, and managed to nnegotiate his way around BCCI politics and provided a positive space where he could manage the senior players very well and formed a very useful partnership with MS Dhoni. He and Graeme Smith molded South Africa into a very strong test outfit, and again, Kirsten's player management style was a standout. But before he embarked on his highly successful coaching career, Gary Kirsten was South Africa's most important batsman in the 1990s. Although Jacques Kallis had emerged towards the later years of the decades, Kirsten was the one who really carried their batting across conditions. His batting was not one for the stylists, but he was mighty effective and very consistent, and his best scrapping qualities came out in tough conditions, when facing subcontinental spinners on turning tracks. He was a safe fielder as well. Will add more details as the debates progress, but I am very sure Garry Kirsten will be a very worthy addition

I wonder if I can ask one of you chaps a favour (Hoggy is always very helpful and absolutely brilliant at this sort of thing ).

The main case for Titmus F.J. and quotes in support of his legacy are contained in two old posts of mine on page 18 of Part 3 of the HoF thread on the Honours Board. I'm currently having to post using an old blackberry which crashes at the slighest provocation and so am unable to reproduce copies here. Very grateful if someone else could, many thanks.

Thanks for that, Kwini - and to you, Hoggy, for accepting the steal so graciously.

To confirm, the main case from me for Titmus F.J. is contained in my post of 7 November 2012 as can be found in Kwini's attachment. Also there is a later post of the same date from me supplying quotes in support of him (Titmus, not Kwini) from the great and the good.

I don't believe I missed out anything fundamental to Titmus' cause and so feel it's very much over to you lot now. Happy to have a go at answering any queries or responding to comments.

In the Titmus case, I found Guildford's initial case very interesting, yet as he revels in reminding me at every given opportunity, I couldn't look pass his ordinary record. His longevity is a very strong point in his favor. The rejection of Tiger Pataudy and Athol Rowan, both with decent records, means Titmus wouldn't get through on the basis of his fantastic comeback after that horrific injury in my view. Titmus' folk hero status was another point debated originally, but unlike say in the case of Fredye Flintoff, I doubt the status had a wide reach across the cricket world, or even for that matter entire England?

Back to the Gary Kirsten case. I would share some links and quotes later, but a few general points. When Kirsten became India's coach, he was the 3rd foreigner to take up the responsibility. John Right was respected, Greg Chappell, by the time he was done, had few supporters among players, administrators and ordinary followers of the game. But Guru Gary was not only widely respected, no other coach gained as much affection from the players as well as supporters, and everyone asked why rather than why not when he eventually left, and he's highly regarded by the Indian cricket environment that includes the players as well as fans. In the 3 years he was coach, whenever any Indian player engaged with the press, they never missed an opportunity to thank Gary. He was a friend to the old and the young alike, from Sachin Tendulkar to Zaheer Khan, from Gautam Gambhir to Virat Kohli, they all had a lot of good things to say about Kirsten.

Msp - whilst I don't regard Titmus as a stand out cricketing great, I view his record as a lot better than ''ordinary'' and probably just about in the category of very good. When I researched things last time out, I was actually surprised and impressed. I'm off to a meeting shortly but will try and back that up tonight.

For anyone insisting upon playing greatness for a cricketer to enter the Hall of Fame, I concede that you might as well vote ''No'' now. However, I'm looking at the whole package that accompanies Titmus - character, spirit, triumphs, conquest of adversity, quirkiness, absurd longevity, legacy, etc, etc, etc - and believe all that, together with his more than decent playing record, would make him a welcome and rather unique addition.

Titmus does have some mind-boggling numbers in First Class cricket. I consider international cricket a lot more important than FC cricket, but the number of balls he bowled in FC cricket, the number of games played, the number of wickets taken, all at a pretty decent average. Don't think I really appreciated it that much last time round. That might not be enough to change my decision at this stage, but if I do, than that would be a major reason.

Well I voted yes to both Titmus and Marsh first time round, albeit after a good deal of persuasion, so I'd be unlikely to change my votes unless some new argument about them arose.As for Kirsten, his playing record is good, not great, but his record as coach appears very good indeed. Must admit that my initial inclination is to say yes but, as ever, I await the debate.

Before I move on to Kirsten's excellent coaching record in some detail, lets just stay focused on his batting a bit. Some noteworthy points from his cricinfo profile. "Gary Kirsten was never blessed with the flair and the almost pure technique of his half-brother Peter, but his discipline, temperament and his penchant for hard work stood during his days as a batsman, when he became so established at the top of the South African batting order that it's almost impossible to think how they would cope without him........ As a batsman, what stood out was his determination, the ability to concentrate for long periods and a burning desire to score runs. A left-hander with a relatively unique technique, Kirsten simply worked out his strengths and weaknesses and based his game around them. In this respect he was one of the most organised batsman to play for South Africa since their readmission. Calm and level-headed, he brought a healthy degree of common sense to the art of batting".

Kirsten was a fighter with the batting All his qualities as a batsman stood out during his marathon knock of 275 against England at Durban. After England had scored 366, South Africa were shot out 210 runs behind and were asked to follow-on. When Kirsten was 7th out for 275, after playing 642 balls, after battling the England bowlers for no less than 14 hours, the game was safe for his side.

Another of Kirsten's highlight performances came at Headingley in 2003. South Africa were 2 for 1 when Kirsten came in. It soon became 2 for 2, 16 for 3, 21 for 4 and then 142-7. When Kirsten, grafting hard along with the lower order was eventually out for 130, South Africa were 316-9. He then added another 60 more in the 2nd innings for good measure to organize a famous South African win.

His fighting qualities and ability to play spin came in very handy in the South African tour of India in 1996. Kirsten played his part in their Kolkata test win with twin hundreds, 102 in the first innings and 133 2nd time round. In their victorious tour in 2000, Kirsten top scored in the first innings of the first test with 50 and thus helped cut down India's lead. The series win was of course set up by the bowlers, but Kirsten at the top gave a sense of permanency as he always did in the subcontinent, and he scored another half-century in the 2nd test as well.

guildfordbat wrote:Msp - whilst I don't regard Titmus as a stand out cricketing great, I view his record as a lot better than ''ordinary'' and probably just about in the category of very good. When I researched things last time out, I was actually surprised and impressed. I'm off to a meeting shortly but will try and back that up tonight.

For anyone insisting upon playing greatness for a cricketer to enter the Hall of Fame, I concede that you might as well vote ''No'' now. However, I'm looking at the whole package that accompanies Titmus - character, spirit, triumphs, conquest of adversity, quirkiness, absurd longevity, legacy, etc, etc, etc - and believe all that, together with his more than decent playing record, would make him a welcome and rather unique addition.

I'll also touch on folk hero status later.

A day later than intended for which apologies but a bit more now on Titmus' absurd longevity and achievements with the help of numbers plus a couple of quotes and probably my favourite story of him thrown in.

A few numbers:

2,830. The number of first class wickets Titmus took, the most of any player since World War Two and the ninth highest in the history of the game.

792. The number of first class matches played by Titmus, the most of any player since World War Two and the eighth highest in the history of the game.

173,450. The number of balls bowled by Titmus in first class cricket, second only to Hall of Fame member Wilfred Rhodes. As Stephen Chalke wrote in The Independent, ''he loved bowling, always willing to shoulder the burden when conditions were unhelpful.''

1.95. His economy rate per over in Test cricket, one of the lowest and even beating that of the supeme exponent of attritional bowling and Hall of Fame member Lance Gibbs (1.98).

26-17-19-5. His figures in the second innings of the 1965 Leeds Test against New Zealand which included a quadruple wicket maiden. David Frith wrote of this and what followed in the Guardian, ''He had another field day the next summer [1965] teasing out five New Zealanders to seal the Headingley Test, and was an automatic choice for his second Australian campaign, another tough one. At Sydney, Titmus completed the 1,000 / 100 Test double - the rare achievement of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets - in his 40th Test, continuing to bowl cannily and steadily and making runs in the lower order. He was just the man a captain needed, grinding out fifties and picking up three-fors and sometimes five-fors from thoughtful and resolute spells of teasing bowling.'' I was originally surprised to see this achievement described as ''rare'' but it is actually quite uncommon and was considerably so in Titmus' time. If you up the wicket taking requirement to make it a Test double of 1,000 / 150, only seven players reached this milestone before Titmus; six of those (Tate, Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, Davidson and Sobers) are already in the Hall of Fame whilst the seventh (Vinoo Mankad) has been mentioned in dispatches.

33. The number of years between Titmus' first class debut for Middlesex in 1949 and his final match for the same county in 1982. The circumstances of how he played that final match are typically Titmusesque. At the age of 49 he popped into the Middlesex changing room shortly before the start of a Championship match to wish his former colleagues well and ''cadge a cup of coffee''. The genius of a captain that was Mike Brearley recognised the role that Titmus could perform on a wicket expected to take spin. He was persuaded to play and kit was quickly found for him. As ever, Titmus let no one down as he took 3 second innings wickets which helped Middlesex win the game and the County Championship.

The above may not prove greatness but I hope it shows why I rallied against the use of the term ''ordinary'' in describing Titmus' playing career.

As I said, his First Class numbers are simply mind-boggling. But a test strike rate close to a hundred isn't. The bowling average is nothing special neither is the number of wickets. The batting average suggests that he was a bowler who could bat alright rather than the real deal as a test all-rounder. We have rejected Makhaya Entini so comprehensively despite him taking close to 400 test wickets at a pretty decent average for his times, of 28, and we haven't been impressed enough by the courage of the likes of Pataudi and Rowan to include them as their records were perceived not good enough. Titmus has the numbers firmly going for him in First Class cricket, but not in test cricket. But he has a lot of extra factors going for him.

... Titmus has the numbers firmly going for him in First Class cricket, but not in test cricket. But he has a lot of extra factors going for him.

Msp - although our tones are different, I don't think we're actually that far apart in our conclusions. My concentration upon Titmus' Test playing record is not to make a case for greatness there (that would be unrealistic) but to try and show that it is good enough not to exclude admission. It is the sum - and the length - of the many factors that convince me of the case for inclusion.

Mike Selig wrote: Gary Kirsten (nominated by kingraf who doesn't seem to have been around much;)

Sorry lads been a bit busy working like a madman, and trying to have something resembling a social life - in fact the the only reason I'm going to try effect a discussion is because I slept this afternoon and am now staring at the walls...

For me its quite straightforward - Gary Kirsten was one of the best openers of his age, and probably the best of all time. I've said repeatedly on differing threads that South Africa is a bit of a graveyard for batsmen, and this was especially true in the nineties. A look at Gary's a a average indicates that he averaged six runs more away from home, than he did in his home country, which almost stabs home the point (Gibbs averaged less home and away, as does a good portion of the current set-up). A quick (and indeed, lacking in "tooth-comb") search indicates that Kirsten has one of the Top 20 averages for an opener (having played X, not even being completely sure how many matches X is) amount of games. he also averages above 40 in coloured kit, an incredibly high average for an ODI opener before ODI cricket became a game of "pop it into the banks... there are no fielders". All this, without even including his coaching credits, makes him a shoo-in for me.

So Gary Kirsten - YesRod Marsh - Won't vote now, but it will take a bit of convincing to convince me as to how this is a possibility... Fred Titmus - If he gets in, I think all the comments about Imran Tahir's (lack of) ability need to be burned off the internet... and that Paul Harris will be probably only require a one-sentence write up to get in... NO

kingraf

raf

Posts : 16122Join date : 2012-06-06Age : 24Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Fred Titmus - If he gets in, I think all the comments about Imran Tahir's (lack of) ability need to be burned off the internet... and that Paul Harris will be probably only require a one-sentence write up to get in... NO

Raf - that to me is a highly disappointing response. Not that you say ''NO'' to Titmus but that you appear to take no account of the arguments put in his favour. There's clearly no compulsion for you or others to fall in line with those arguments but to simply ignore them is certainly discouraging for those putting up a case they believe in and are willing to debate.

Anyway, as Alec Stewart said to me recently (that bit of name dropping is particularly for you, Corporal - hope you like it! ), ''it's a game of opinions, sir''. Even though it's not the basis of my case, I'll still choose Graeme Swann's opinion of Titmus over Raf's -''Fred Titmus was a great spinner.''

kingraf,Haven't made a determination on any of these nominations yet but there's no point in participating if you don't respect other posters' testimonies.

Titmus's credentials are extraordinary; the only question as to his rightful ascendancy to our Hall Of Fame surely lies in the disparagement of non-Test First Class Cricket by the voters.This has penalised others in the past, most notably Frank Woolley; there is a big question in my mind how we value different forms of cricket whether they be the old County game (or local equivalents around the World), ODI's, etc, etc.

But to dismiss Titmus so contemptuously suggests you've been posting while somewhat the worse for local moonshine.

Kwini & Guildford - apologies for the tone of my previous post. After some sleep, it does look rather flippant....

But - while I retract the tone of the post, I certainly don't retract the gist of it. Every game South Africa's played for the last two years, I've come on here highlighting that Tahir is in fact a very good cricketer... just look at his stats... No bite.

So now I'm faced with a rather similar scenario with a player who has a rather similar FC record to Imran (albeit, Fred played almost a million matches)... and that's the basis for which his nomination hangs?

Won't get into it a lot more, because, well - The thread is a rather good natured one, and my I don't think I'm going to add any positivity if I continue discussing the goose, so I'll leave it here and continue to defend the cause of the gander elsewhere

Last edited by kingraf on Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:36 am; edited 1 time in total

kingraf

raf

Posts : 16122Join date : 2012-06-06Age : 24Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Msp - is this related to the case for for (or against) Titmus? Bit puzzled if so.

The three players you mention above (I only know of Ramprakash) all appear to have failed badly at Test level. Titmus didn't. I fully accept his Test record is not stunning but maintain that it is more than decent. Certainly imo it is not so poor as to exclude admittance - that is the crux for me as so many parts make up his case*.

Those who equate the Hall of Fame with a Hall of Test Stats should definitely vote ''NO'' to Titmus but I cling to the hope that it should be more than that and welcome, in the words of my original post, this ''remarkable man''.

* In response to Raf's question, the basis of the case is set out in my post of 7 November 2012 and supported with quotes from some of the great and the good of the game in a later post the same day - all contained in Kwini's attachment from earlier this week above.

Msp - is this related to the case for for (or against) Titmus? Bit puzzled if so.

The three players you mention above (I only know of Ramprakash) all appear to have failed badly at Test level. Titmus didn't. I fully accept his Test record is not stunning but maintain that it is more than decent. Certainly imo it is not so poor as to exclude admittance - that is the crux for me as so many parts make up his case*.

Those who equate the Hall of Fame with a Hall of Test Stats should definitely vote ''NO'' to Titmus but I cling to the hope that it should be more than that and welcome, in the words of my original post, this ''remarkable man''.

* In response to Raf's question, the basis of the case is set out in my post of 7 November 2012 and supported with quotes from some of the great and the good of the game in a later post the same day - all contained in Kwini's attachment from earlier this week above.

Guildford, I was just thinking....... Of the 3 players I mentioned, only one has really failed and that's Ramprakash. Jadeja is building up a decent international career for himself and his bowling has been test standards though his batting hasn't been of the range his FC stats would suggest yet. The lad certainly can bat, but his 3 triple tons and a First Class average of 50 is not really suggestive of his batting abilities. His ODI average of 32 is though. Thilan Samaraweera was one of Sri Lanka's better batsmen. He came into the national side as an all-rounder and though his FC stats were very impressive, he played his tests mainly as a batsman and averaged 48, but he couldn't make any impact with the ball despite a very creditable first class record. It is pertinent to remember that Michael Bevan, one of the greats of ODI cricket who could not get through in the first round debates had a First Class average of 57 while accumulating close to 20000 runs. My point is that we have to be very careful in placing FC record in the priority list. Said that, a case can be made that Titmus has to be an exception because of the very mind-boggling numbers that he has in FC cricket. As such, the numbers could eventually matter for Titmus....... I agree the stats should not be the only criteria. But for a nominee who's contribution to the game is mainly as a player and not as say, coach, administrator, commentator and so on, the numbers should really matter. A player with good but not exceptional numbers could be pushed through because of the extra factors.

guildfordbat wrote:... My point is that we have to be very careful in placing FC record in the priority list. Said that, a case can be made that Titmus has to be an exception because of the very mind-boggling numbers that he has in FC cricket. As such, the numbers could eventually matter for Titmus....... I agree the stats should not be the only criteria. But for a nominee who's contribution to the game is mainly as a player and not as say, coach, administrator, commentator and so on, the numbers should really matter. A player with good but not exceptional numbers could be pushed through because of the extra factors.

Right, now I get your point. I don't see that we disagree. More perhaps a noisy agreement?

I suspect you believe the folk hero aspect is more important to me than it actually is. Will try to explain and cover tonight.

With the withdrawal of the position paper I should have a bit more time to spend on here.

Interesting arguments over Titmus. As a Middlesex fan I am of course biased - growing up I was quickly conditioned to believe this guy was a demi-god who held pretty much all the bowling records going (for Middlesex). Still does in fact.

Probably second best to only Wilfred Rhodes in terms of sustained brilliance and durability in the county game (at least). Rhodes of course stormed into the HoF. Is being 2nd best to a true great good enough for HoF admittance?

It's worth remembering that the county game was undoubtedly stronger back then as well. The England players played more regularly, and the overseas players were of a higher standard. In fact there is a reasonable and not entirely mischievous argument which says that the county game back then was stronger than the ODI scene now, what with some weaker teams and a lot of sides using rotation policies (even if they don't call them that anymore).

I wish to also bring my usual defence in terms of strike-rates for off-spinners of his era forward: cricket was back then a much more attrition-focused (the great Aussie side under Benaud not withstanding), and off-spinners didn't get LBWs.

As such comparisons with Imran Tahir should be treated with the contempt which they deserve. Yes Tahir does have a fantastic first class record, but in test matches so far and with the exception of a couple of games in the UAE (on pitches where frankly I'd back myself to spin some players out) has been somewhere between mediocre and awful. His first class record is moreover built in a completely different era; my memory of him playing for Hampshire is that he cleaned up the tail a lot (which is easier to do as a leggie anyway) and got quite a few LBWs with his wrong-un or slider which he wouldn't probably have been given back in the 50s/60s.

Anyway enough of that. Nobody is seriously suggesting (I hope) that Imran Tahir is as worthy of HoF entry as Fred Titmus.

We are, or should be, agreed that Titmus's test record is not in itself either good enough to get him in, or poor enough to exclude him outright (we have admitted many people with worse records). Similarly his mental fortitude and the way he overcame a debilitating injury are plus points, but not enough on their own. msp's contention is that because Titmus's primary argument for admission is his record as a player (unlike say Tauffel or Rhodes) that his test record can't necessarily be brushed aside as easily as those were; in that setting the more apt comparison seems to be with Woolley (in hindsight I believe we gave the latter too short a time). That seems to me to be reasonable, even with the caveat that I'm not sure comparing different candidates is a suitable way to proceed.

I guess the question then is pretty much as kwini puts it. How much do you value do you place on each respective format? I'm not suggesting an answer, but do suggest people should look at the strength of county cricket over the course of Titmus's career before making any potentially rash judgements.

As a player his record is very good. I would have him as one of the top openers of his time, in my recollection he would be in the same bracket as Atherton, Taylor, Saeed Anwar (I know people will scoff at Atherton's name in that list possibly, but I will stand by it; his average is deflated by carrying on for too long as England needed him whilst almost crippled by a back injury, and doesn't tell the true story of someone who was all too often England's only man to stand up and be counted).

In fact though that may be doing him somewhat of a disservice - I hadn't realised that his average overall was as high as 45 (I had him in the low 40s) - which given he played through the 90s is a more than handy effort.

Upon closer inspection though, I believe my bracketing is correct: against the Australians he "only" averaged 35 (that is ok for an opener against that attack, but not great of course), he of course never faced the South African attack, and only faced the West Indies from 98 onwards, when they were well past their best.

Having said that, stats can only tell you so much, no matter how much detail you go into. There is no doubt that throughout the 90s Kirsten was the prized wicket of a fairly average South African batting line-up (Kallis wasn't yet the great player he became, whilst Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes is a decent middle-order but no better), and scored a bagful of tough runs on tough pitches against good attacks.

His record though does leave him somewhat short of HoF status in my eyes.

As such his coaching ability becomes a central part of his candidacy.

So how good a coach is Gary Kirsten?

Well he is certainly very highly regarded everywhere as far as I know. I know the Indians took to him particularly well, and getting India to number 1 in tests as well as winning a WC on home soil has to stand out as a fantastic achievement.

I don't claim he is the best coach or the most innovative, or the most inspiring even, but I don't know of anybody who works so well with the captain and players generally individually as Kirsten. That to me would be his USP. His working relationship with Dhoni is regularly brought up during coaching seminars I have attended, often analysed and used as a blue-print. Beyond that, Gary Kirsten is simply fantastic at getting the best out of his players individually.

That is not to say he doesn't have limitations. Succession planning and his reluctance to commit long-term would be minor minus points, whilst I remain unconvinced he could have the same kind of success as a coach with a team of lesser status. But if you want someone with an eye for talent and the best way of using it, and the man-manager skills to get the best out of everyone then Kirsten is your man.

But how good was county cricket really? I've been told it was incredibly strong in his era, and I have no real reason to doubt that - regardless, it strikes me as rather odd that despite being in possession of the best league in the world (and unlike the EPL, most participants were actually English, no)... The entire time England didn't really have a standout team... which begs the question...

How do the two reconcile? I have no answer, actually - I just ask the tough questions...

kingraf

raf

Posts : 16122Join date : 2012-06-06Age : 24Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Though the argument that County Cricket was strong during Titmus's era is somewhat valid, there are other questions that should be addressed. The pressure and intensity of international cricket is much higher than that of FC cricket at any level. That's the rule, there could be certainly contextual exceptions of course. On Titmus and the comparisons with other players. The point of the Imran Tahir comparison, outlandish though it might sound, has one valid point, that there is a difference between FC and Test cricket, but there is not much beyond that, and as I mentioned in my post above, there are other considerable examples as well. As for mental fortitude and overcoming adversity, Makhaya Ntini should rank very high. He is certainly a folk hero in South Africa. And he has a very good International record as well. But we rejected him without even giving him a 2nd chance. Athol Rowan overcame serious adversities but wasn't deemed good enough. Tiger Pataudi had a lot going for him in terms of extra factors but his OK Only record eventually did him in. And there is of course Frank Wooley who's First Class exploits wre not good enough to overcome the not so good international record. Is Titmus's case considerably better than these players?

I would rank Titmus's record as a player ahead of the likes of Ntini, and certainly Rowan and Pataudi; the latter 2 of course did extraordinary well to do as well as they did given their physical conditions, but were still being nominated as players, so ultimately had to be judged by their playing records (as Titmus will be eventually); as for Ntini, I believe that with more time we will be able to study his impact in far more depth, but at the time it is impossible to judge and as such there was really nothing to go on beyond his playing record which wasn't good enough. As I said, I wonder whether we rejected Wooley too readily.

As I said though, I'm not sure comparing candidates is possible or even reasonable (I remember Wes Hall being compared to about 12 people whilst we were debating him).

You are right to point out of course that FC cricket is not test cricket. I suppose the question is how much of a difference was there back in the 50s and 60s. I am fairly sure there was less difference than there is now, but I can't answer that easily. Where's 4th Lion when you need him?

I don't think suggestions that titmus had a superior test record to that of Makhaya Ntini is sustainable at all. Just remind, there is a 4 run difference in their bowling average in favor of Ntini, there is a 45 ball strike rate difference again in Ntini's favor, and he took 4 10fors to none for Titmus. And of course Ntini has taken 390 test wickets to Titmus' 153. Of course Ntini played 101 tests, Titmus played 53 but even then, Ntini averaged more wickets per test. The only area where Titmus can score more over Ntini is in terms of economy rate.

I just had a look at the record of Ray Illingworth, a contemporary of Titmus. Illingworth also played close to 800 FC games, bowled about 117000 deliveries, took more than 2000 FC wickets at an average of 20. He played First Class cricket for 32 years. The numbers aren't dissimilar to that of Titmus. Illingworth had a better FC bowling average and even his test average was a bit better. But the other important thing is that he too played First Class cricket for no less than 32 years, very similar to Titmus again.